IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v60y2005i2p357-368.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Under what conditions is euthanasia acceptable to lay people and health professionals?

Author

Listed:
  • Teisseyre, Nathalie
  • Mullet, Etienne
  • Sorum, Paul Clay

Abstract

Euthanasia is legal only in the Netherlands and Belgium, but it is on occasion performed by physicians elsewhere. We recruited in France two convenience samples of 221 lay people and of 189 professionals (36 physicians, 92 nurses, 48 nurse's aides, and 13 psychologists) and asked them how acceptable it would be for a patient's physician to perform euthanasia in each of 72 scenarios. The scenarios were all combinations of three levels of the patient's life expectancy (3 days, 10 days, or 1 month), four levels of the patient's request for euthanasia (no request, unable to formulate a request because in a coma, some form of request, repeated formal requests), three of the family's attitude (do not uselessly prolong care, no opinion, try to keep the patient alive to the very end), and two of the patient's willingness to undergo organ donation (willing or not willing). We found that most lay people and health care professionals structure the factors in the patient scenarios in the same way: they assign most importance to the extent of requests for euthanasia by the patient and least importance (the lay people) or none (the health professionals) to the patient's willingness to donate organs. They also integrate the information from the different factors in the same way: the factors of patient request, patient life expectancy, and (for the lay people) organ donation are combined additively, and the family's attitude toward prolonging care interacts with patient request (playing a larger role when the patient can make no request). Thus we demonstrate a common cognitive foundation for future discussions, at the levels of both clinical care and public policy, of the conditions under which physician-performed euthanasia might be acceptable.

Suggested Citation

  • Teisseyre, Nathalie & Mullet, Etienne & Sorum, Paul Clay, 2005. "Under what conditions is euthanasia acceptable to lay people and health professionals?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 357-368, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:60:y:2005:i:2:p:357-368
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(04)00250-3
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Donald L. Patrick & Helene E. Starks & Kevin C. Cain & Richard F. Uhlmann & Robert A. Pearlman, 1994. "Measuring Preferences for Health States Worse than Death," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 14(1), pages 9-18, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sergio Cesare Masin & Michele Vicovaro, 2023. "Sources of uncertainty in functional measurement methodology," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(2), pages 1185-1205, April.
    2. Marco Heimann & Étienne Mullet & Jean-François Bonnefon, 2015. "Peoples’ Views About the Acceptability of Executive Bonuses and Compensation Policies," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 127(3), pages 661-671, March.
    3. Parpa, Efi & Mystakidou, Kyriaki & Tsilika, Eleni & Sakkas, Pavlos & Patiraki, Elisabeth & Pistevou-Gombaki, Kyriaki & Govina, Ourania & Panagiotou, Irene & Galanos, Antonis & Gouliamos, Athanasios, 2010. "Attitudes of health care professionals, relatives of advanced cancer patients and public towards euthanasia and physician assisted suicide," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(2-3), pages 160-165, October.
    4. Erwin Stolz & Nathalie Burkert & Franziska Großschädl & Éva Rásky & Willibald J Stronegger & Wolfgang Freidl, 2015. "Determinants of Public Attitudes towards Euthanasia in Adults and Physician-Assisted Death in Neonates in Austria: A National Survey," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-15, April.
    5. Cohen, Joachim & Marcoux, Isabelle & Bilsen, Johan & Deboosere, Patrick & van der Wal, Gerrit & Deliens, Luc, 2006. "European public acceptance of euthanasia: Socio-demographic and cultural factors associated with the acceptance of euthanasia in 33 European countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 743-756, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stevens, K, 2010. "Valuation of the Child Health Utility Index 9D (CHU9D)," MPRA Paper 29938, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Brazier, John & Roberts, Jennifer & Deverill, Mark, 2002. "The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 271-292, March.
    3. Carol Graham & Lucas Higuera & Eduardo Lora, 2011. "Which health conditions cause the most unhappiness?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(12), pages 1431-1447, December.
    4. José‐Luis Pinto‐Prades & José‐María Abellán‐Perpiñán, 2005. "Measuring the health of populations: the veil of ignorance approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(1), pages 69-82, January.
    5. McTaggart-Cowan, Helen & Tsuchiya, Aki & O'Cathain, Alicia & Brazier, John, 2011. "Understanding the effect of disease adaptation information on general population values for hypothetical health states," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(11), pages 1904-1912, June.
    6. Johanna Vásquez & Sergio Botero, 2020. "Hybrid Methodology to Improve Health Status Utility Values Derivation Using EQ-5D-5L and Advanced Multi-Criteria Techniques," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(4), pages 1-18, February.
    7. Craig., Benjamin M. & Busschbach, Jan J.V., 2011. "Revisiting United States valuation of EQ-5D states," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 1057-1063.
    8. Katherine J. Stevens & Christopher J. McCabe & John E. Brazier, 2006. "Mapping between Visual Analogue Scale and Standard Gamble data; results from the UK Health Utilities Index 2 valuation survey," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 527-533, May.
    9. Katherine Stevens, 2012. "Valuation of the Child Health Utility 9D Index," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(8), pages 729-747, August.
    10. Wladislaw Mill & John Morgan, 2022. "The cost of a divided America: an experimental study into destructive behavior," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(3), pages 974-1001, June.
    11. John Brazier & Donna Rowen & Yaling Yang & Aki Tsuchiya, 2012. "Comparison of health state utility values derived using time trade-off, rank and discrete choice data anchored on the full health-dead scale," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(5), pages 575-587, October.
    12. Liv Augestad & Kim Rand-Hendriksen & Ivar Kristiansen & Knut Stavem, 2012. "Impact of Transformation of Negative Values and Regression Models on Differences Between the UK and US EQ-5D Time Trade-Off Value Sets," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(12), pages 1203-1214, December.
    13. Yan Feng & Arne Risa Hole & Milad Karimi & Aki Tsuchiya & Ben van Hout, 2018. "An exploration of the non‐iterative time trade‐off method to value health states," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(8), pages 1247-1263, August.
    14. L. M. Lamers & C. A. M. Bouwmans & A. van Straten & M. C. H. Donker & L. Hakkaart, 2006. "Comparison of EQ‐5D and SF‐6D utilities in mental health patients," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(11), pages 1229-1236, November.
    15. Eva Rodríguez Míguez & José María Abellán Perpiñán & José Carlos Álvarez Villamarín & José Manuel González Martínez & Antonio Rodríguez Sampayo, 2013. "Development of a new preference-based instrument to measure dependency," Working Papers 1301, Universidade de Vigo, Departamento de Economía Aplicada.
    16. José M. Labeaga & Xisco Oliver & Amedeo Spadaro, "undated". "Measuring Changes in Health Capital," Working Papers 2005-15, FEDEA.
    17. Angela Robinson & Anne Spencer, 2006. "Exploring challenges to TTO utilities: valuing states worse than dead," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(4), pages 393-402, April.
    18. Brazier, J, 2005. "Current state of the art in preference-based measures of health and avenues for further research," MPRA Paper 29762, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Arthur E. Attema & Matthijs M. Versteegh & Mark Oppe & Werner B. F. Brouwer & Elly A. Stolk, 2013. "Lead Time Tto: Leading To Better Health State Valuations?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(4), pages 376-392, April.
    20. Samer A. Kharroubi & Donna Rowen, 2019. "Valuation of preference-based measures: can existing preference data be used to select a smaller sample of health states?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(2), pages 245-255, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:60:y:2005:i:2:p:357-368. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.